"You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose . . ."

I've been reading Wesleyblog lately. Shane, who owns Wesleyblog, has raised an interesting idea--he thinks Reconciling Ministries Nework and Soulforce are doing a lousy job of representing the interests of lesbian and gay persons, and he'd like to see someone else represent the interests of lesbian and gay United Methodists. This reminded me of that old saying, "You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose." However friendly Shane may be, I'm not comfortable having him picking the leadership of the lesbian and gay community of which my family is a part.

Now Shane also tells us he'd really rather not publish anything about about gay people on his blog right now. The subject has been given too much airtime already in Shane's view. But now we see Soulforce and Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) goad Shane into giving lesbian and gay United Methodists more airtime on his blog--seems to me Soulforce and RMN are doing a great job! If Soulforce and RMN did not already exist, we'd have to invent them.

Judicial Council Reconsiders

The United Methodist Judicial Council meets this coming week, and we shall learn if they are going to reconsider their decision 1032. As I see it, what is at stake is whether lesbian and gay persons in committed, same-gender relationships can even be members of the Church. Decision 1032 seems to suggest not only that pastors have a free hand to refuse baptism and membership to lesbians and gays, but that those who have membership might face charges before a church tribunal and have their membership removed by a church trial court--the concurring opinion of Judicial Council member Keith Boyette seems to say as much.

Here is some news from the United Methodist News Service about 75 lesbian and gay United Methodist pastors who have signed a letter protesting the Judicial Council's position. Here is another link to an article describing the briefs being considered by the Judicial Council as they weigh whether to revisit decision 1032.

It should be noted that the 75 pastors are having their actual names/identities held in confidence by an attorney. Some folks making comments in the blogosphere (for example, see Wesleyblog.com and comments posted there) are accusing these pastors of cowardice and of issuing an "anonymous" letter. I disagree. The letter is not anonymous--there are 75 real persons who have identified themselves to an attorney. They are forced to have their identities held in confidence by that attorney, because to be identified as gay or lesbian would bring an immediate end to their ministries. There voices in the church would be silenced, they would simply be cast out and shut out.

I believe their witness is a valuable one, because it reminds people that there are more than one or two lesbian UM clergy who have been tried and defrocked--there are many lesbian and gay UM clergy, many of whom who have been forced out of the ministry without "benefit" of a trial, and many of whom still quietly serve.

A Granddaughter is born - and she blogs!

The new grandbaby arrived on Holy Thursday just before a hailstorm with golfball-size hail. Here's her blog. And baby pictures! The blog is mainly the work of Aunt Nancy, the other daughter (besides Mother Sarah) that Jim and I raised together. I'm very proud of our growing family!

"Misquoting Jesus"

My most-faithfully-read blog is Andrew Sullivan's. Andrew is interesting. A political conservative (which I definitely am not) who is openly gay, and who voted for John Kerry. I don't agree with Andrew on everything, for sure. Andrew wishes that Bush would have managed the Iraq War more competently. I think a more competent president never would have take us into this war in the first place.

Anyway, Andrew is also a Christian, a Roman Catholic, and he's shown some interest lately in Bart Ehrman's new book "Misquoting Jesus." Today he shares with us a link to this critique of Ehrman by another scholar, Ben Witherington.

Ehrman was an "evangelical" (or maybe, more accurately, a Fundamentalist) educated at the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College and later Princeton. When he went into the field of textual criticism, his faith in the Bible was apparently shaken. The text was not as reliable as he once believed it was, apparently. So now Ehrman is an agnostic.

This seems to be one of the dangers of being a Biblical literalist--if one's faith is in the text of the Bible rather than in the God of the Bible, one might be setting oneself up for a fall. This is one of the problems of "Bibliolatry"--the making of an idol, or false god, of the Bible. Witherington offers a helpful criticism of Ehrman that might help the lay people who read Ehrman's book from getting too carried away by Ehrman's "revelations"--none of which are new in the field of the textual criticism of the Bible.

"Gospel of Intolerance"

This opinion piece originally appeared in the Washington Post, but when I went searching for it on the web, I found it on a Pakistani Christian website, a fact which itself shows the global nature of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) struggle for dignity and equality.

An on-line Episcopal friend whom I met at a PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) conference keeps me abreast of the LGBT struggle in the Episcopal/Anglican Church. I believe we Methodists have much to learn here. If nothing else, it is instructive how the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) plays a role in stirring the schismatic pot in that denomination as well as ours.

Of course, the United Methodist Church is even more linked to our African Christian counterparts than are the Episcopalians. African United Methodists cast a growing share of votes in our General Conference. This developing situation in Nigeria raises interesting questions. Our United Methodist Social Principles currently support the human and civil rights of LGBT persons. Are African United Methodists willing to stand for this principle in their own lands? Or will they eventually seek to move our General Conference to remove the more "progressive" aspects of our Social Principles' statements on LGBT persons.

Or is it possible that the influence of United Methodist Social Principles might work in the other direction, urging African United Methodists to speak out against the oppression of LGBT persons in Africa? South Africa, for that matter, under its new post-apartheid Constitution, is now one of the most progressive regimes in the world for LGBT persons. It's one of the growing number of countries in the world that recognizes same-gender marriages.

"Claiming the Promises"

I mentioned in the previous post that I attended a different United Methodist Church in Madison yesterday. It is Trinity Church, located in the old residential neighborhood south of the University of Wisconsin Campus. I'll be attending there for at least the season of Lent (and maybe a little longer). They are using the curriculum "Claiming the Promises" published by the Reconciling Ministries Network. Seems to me that the prospects are good that this will become the fourth United Methodist Church (out of eleven) in this small city to openly declare it's openess to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons.

"When I fall down on my knees. . .

"When I fall down on my knees with my face to the rising sun, O Lord, have mercy on me" So goes the words of the old folk hymn. Yesterday I attended another United Methodist Church in Madison--probably one of the oldest Methodist buildings in the city. God bless 'em, they've added a lift which will make the building accessible to our differently abled brothers and sisters! But they have not changed the old communion rails. This may be the only United Methodist Church in the city where one can still receive communion the way Wesley preferred we receive it--on our knees! (Though I will add that Wesley himself describes a communion service he conducted where he allowed communicants to freely choose their posture for reception--even so, he was pleased that the majority chose to kneel.)

Of course, the method of reception of communion has nothing to do with our salvation, but the practice of kneeling slows things down a bit and gives one time to really ponder what it is we are about.

Evangelicals: Green or not Green?

Neoconservative-connected Evangelicals put the kibosh on plans for the National Association of Evangelicals to come out in support of serious efforts to curb global warming. However a prestigious group of evangelical leaders broke ranks with the White House calling for government efforts to address the threat of global warming.

Our good buddies at the neoconservative Washington think-tank, Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) are deeply involved in this issue. Watch for me to post some more on this issue, but for now let me say I've been seeing this coming for some time. As one who keeps and eye on IRD, I've noticed that they have been involved in critiquing the development of social justice policy by the National Association of Evangelicals, and that they have been developing counter-arguments against taking action on global warming and the environment, generally.

This saddens me, because as a Madison resident and a graduate of our University of Wisconsin, I have taken a good deal of pride in the work of Professor Cal Dewitt, an evangelical and an environmentalist who has worked for many years to convince his fellow evangelicals that God is calling them to be environmentalists. (Calvin DeWitt is quoted in the first Washington Post article linked above.) However, environmentalism is an inconvenience to the powers that be that control the ruling neoconservative wing of the Republican party. Let's pray that evangelicals will continue to break ranks with this power-hungry Washington gang.

Will 1032 lead to schism?

I'm thankful for the comments I've been receiving on this blog. One reader commented on my post about Bishop Kammerer's motion to the Judicial Council to reconsider their decision number 1032. Decision 1032 grants to pastors "discretion" to deny membership to whoever they choose, and declares that this "discretion" cannot be reviewed or challenged by District Superintendents, Bishops or colleagues. In the case then before before the Judicial Council, membership was denied to a person the Methodist Right calls an "unrepentant homosexual."

I suggested that decision 1032 is divisive and will give further impetus to formally divide the church to cause schism. Does this mean, as my reader suggests, that "the Methodist Left will push for schism if 1032 is not reversed"? I really don't know. I don't speak for "the Methodist Left," and I'm not sure anyone does. What I am saying is that 1032 continues down a road that has put more and more pressure on progressives in the Church. The Methodist Right is making it more and more clear that the Methodist Left is not welcome in "their church."

We went from 1784 to 1972 with no mention of homosexuality in Methodist (or EUB Disciplines). It was not until the 1980's that there was language in the Discipline that clearly barred "practicing homosexuals" from ordination. Then it was only 10 years ago that the blessing of same-gender unions was forbidden in the Church--that was the first time that LGBT laity (as opposed to LGBT clergy or aspiring clergy) were directly effected by anti LGBT policies. Not only that, the anti-blessing policy was the first to interfere directly with the ministry and and worship life of local United Methodist Churches and their pastors. As such it effected non-gay persons as well.

Decision 1032 is the first decision to legitimate, in church law, the exclusion of LGBT persons from membership, and the concurring opinion of Judicial Council Member Keith Boyette, published with decision 1032, suggests that LGBT persons who are already members may expect that they could lose their membership in the church if they do not "repent." IRD's Mark Tooley and Good News' James Heidinger now see the door open to begin church trials to remove LGBT persons from membership and have said so.

"Amicable separation" was first proposed by the Methodist Right at the 2004 General Conference. Confessing Movement leader, Bill Hinson, painted this proposal as a compassionate way to end the suffering of progressive and LGBT Methodists under official church oppression. It appears that their intention is to put more and more pressure on progressive Methodists in order to force them out of the church--there doesn't seem to be much that is "amicable" about that.

Where I stand personally: Schism just doesn't seem right to me. I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ, and think it is a shame that we divide the church. On the other hand, what am I to do if I find my membership is forcibly removed from me? Can the Judicial Council really exclude me from the Body of Christ--or will the Spirit find a way to reconstitute that broken body somewhere else? The early church really began to grow after persecution drove them out of their first home in Jerusalem.

The year of Mark

I missed posting on the lectionary for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany. I hope no one was counting on me for sermon ideas! This is the year of the Gospel of Mark, and it seems like we've been stuck in the first chapter of Mark for three weeks now, and we have one more week to go of that before we get to chapter two!

Chapter one is prologue and set up for the rest of the story. The first big controversy doen't happen until chapter two, but there are certain foreshadowings in chapter one. There is the passing reference to the arrest of John the Baptist. It seems, maybe, that John got in trouble because of his popularity and all the crowds that were coming from everywhere to rally to him in the desert. Now, in the later part of the first chapter, Jesus is beginning to go down that same road--gathering huge crowds to him attracted by his ability to heal the sick, and hearing his preaching the coming of the Rule of God.

I agree with John Dominic Crossan who suggests that Jesus was a threat because he provided the crowds an access to God that did not go through "the proper channels" (through the brokers of power). The "proper" religious channels were under control of the Roman puppet rulers, the priestly class, of Jerusalem and all their clients (those who depended on the patronage of the powerful). John the Baptist provided the masses with "a baptism for the repentence of sins." No need to go to Jerusalem and enrich the Temple system--just go to the river and wash. John preached the coming Rule of God--and what will become of Roman rule then? John is arrested, and Jesus goes down the same road. Is it any wonder Jesus is headed for trouble in chapter two?

And then there is the big secret announced in verse one of chapter 1, the secret that the demons keep wanting to cry out--Jesus is the Son of God! Why is that such a secret? Ceasar had public artworks erected everywhere (the mass media of the day) to proclaim that he was the Son of God (Augustus was the son of the divine Julius Ceasar!) Best to keep that secret, Jesus. You'll be in trouble with Ceasar if he should ever hear that one!

Bishop Charlene Kammerer seeks Reconsideration of #1032

This article from the United Methodist News Service deals with the appeal by Bishop Kammerer for reconsideration by the Judicial Council of their decision 1032. The Council of Bishops unanimously raised their objections to 1032 in a pastoral letter to the whole Church. Some have mistakenly thought that this guaranteed a reconsideration by the Judicial Council. Actually, only parties to the original decision (of which Bishop Kammerer was one, being the Bishop whose ruling on church law was reversed by the Judicial Council) have standing to file an appeal for reconsideration. After hearing the motions for reconsideration, at least five of the nine-member Judicial Council will need to vote for reconsideration before decision 1032 itself will be reconsidered. There is no guarantee that the Judicial Council will reverse itself. This is very much a live issue.

It is almost an understatement to say that this issue is divisive--the Judicial Council's decision received the unanimous rebuke of the Council of Bishops. In effect, the "judicial branch" of United Methodist church government has been rebuked by the "executive branch." Reconsideration by the Judicial Council of its own decision is the only way forward. If decision 1032 stands, expect pressure for schism of the church to build. In effect, the "right-wing" of the church is raising the stakes in the thirty-year debate over the "issue of homosexuality." Until now the "right-wing" was satisfied to exclude LGBT persons from ordained ministry--now the way is opened to simply exclude LGBT people from the body of Christ altogether.

Letter from Bishop Linda Lee on Judicial Council Decision 1032

[Note: Below is a letter which appeared recently in the Wisconsin Annual Conference Newsletter, Communique. Since, I have not found that letter elsewhere on the web, I reproduce it below. General permission was given to reproduce the content of Communique]

December 2005

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

At its fall 2005 meeting the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church made 32 decisions of church law. The structure of the United Methodist Church resembles that of the U.S. government. General Conference is the legislative branch; Judicial Council is the "supreme court." The Council of Bishops is similar to the executive branch but, although the Council has a president, elected every two years, there is no single general officer or executive of The United Methodist Church.

One of the decisions made by the Judicial Council was #1032. This decision included a response to the question of whether a pastor must receive into church membership anyone who is able to receive, affirm and promise to affirm the vow of membership. In this instance, it was a person who is homosexual.

This decision of the judicial body of our Church has caused alarm among what appears to be a significant segment across our membership. In the Council of Bishops there was enough concern about the implications of this decision, that at our November meeting we drafted a unanimous response including the following understanding of our Constitution:

"The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking the vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection."

The first criteria for membership in the United Methodist Church and the Church universal is our relationship with Jesus Christ. Everything else we do and commit to flows from that relationship.

in addition to my understanding that the words of our constitution are clear, I have a couple of other questions about this decision.

I affirm the duty and responsibility of appointed pastors to "exercise responsible pastoral judgement in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church," (Decision #1032). However, I believe the Judicial Council interpretation of this responsibility sets a precedent that allows determination of membership to be based on criteria which are neither Biblical nor Disciplinary. It opens a door that has the potential to set human relations in our nation and denomination back 50 years or more because it allows for an arbitrary standard of church membership that can be easily abused. This decision also has the potential to undermine the covenant of the clergy session and the supervisory responsibilities of Cabinets and Bishops.

This kind of decision by the judicial body of our denomination is serious in its implications for the future membership of our congregations because its effect can be divisive and exclusionary. As we look toward 2006 in the Wisconsin Conference, let us join our hearts and spirits in prayer for our denomination. Let us claim the ministry of reconciliation and witness to God's love, given to us by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let us be clear in our convictions, open in our hearts, strong in our trust in God and abiding in love for one another. It is by our love that the world will know that we are Jesus' disciples.

"Each of us is now a part of his resurrection body, refreshed and sustained at one fountain - Spirit - where we all come to drink. The old labels we once used to identify ourselves - labels like Jew or Greek, slave or free - are no longer useful. We need something larger, something more comprehensive." (I Corinthians 12: 27)

That more is this:

"You are Christ's body - that's who you are! You must never forget this." (I Corinthians 12: 27)

In Christ's Spirit,

Bishop Linda Lee

The Lord will raise up a prophet . . . .

The reading from the Hebrew Scriptures in this coming Sunday's lectionary is from Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy seems to suggest that one of the reasons God continues to send prophets after Moses is because the people of God say "If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die." (Deut. 18:16b) That people cannot see and know God directly and absolutely seems to be a theme throughout Scripture. Another example is from I John 4: 12 "No one has ever seen God . . ." and a little later at I John 4:20b ". . .for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen."

The reading in Deuteronomy suggests that we continue to need prophets because we cannot see God or fully know God's Word in a direct way. I believe this is a caution against bibliolatry--making an idol or substitute for God out of the Bible. Why, after all, did the people of God need prophets when they presumably had God's word in the form of the Torah, the law, delivered in writing from Moses (this, of course, ignores the fact that scholars no longer think Moses was the source of that part of the Bible we know as the "five books of Moses.")

This raises another point--"God's word" is no where in the Bible identified with the sixty-six books that we Protestants call the Bible. For Christians the supreme prophet, the very Word of God (see the prologue to John's Gospel), was revealed to us in God's incarnation in Jesus the Christ. Even so, we continue to need prophets to remind us of God's revelation in Jesus, and to continue to reveal to us the word that God is still speaking us today. (I hadn't planned to refer to the United Church of Christ's new slogan, "God is Still Speaking"--but it is an excellent statement.)

For those who believe in Bibliolatry what I am saying here is heresy--and yet I believe the Bible itself tells us that God has more to reveal to us than is contained in those sixty-six books of the Protestant canon of Scripture.

School of the Americas Watch

Today in worship we had a blessing and send off for Fred Brancel, one of our members at University United Methodist Church in Madison who is traveling to Columbus, Georgia to face trial for civil disobedience against the School of the Americas. Here is a link to School fo the Americas Watch and an article describing the upcoming trial. Fred is 79 years old. I've know Fred since the early 1970's when he worked on the staff of the Wesley Foundation and University Church. Perhaps many more of us will need to follow Fred's example before we can put an end to our government's support for and use of torture.

Mainstream Media on Egg Roll "Controversy"

Over the last week I've been posting about the right-wing revelation of a "plot" by lesbian and gay families to bring their children to the White House Easter Egg Roll (see below). Here is the first mainstream media report on this "controversy." Pretty well done, I think. The right wing needs to explain why the picture perfect family with two mommies shown with this article are too threatening to be admitted to the event with other families.

Now after John was arrested . . .

"Now after John was arrested . . ." --this is how this Sunday's gospel reading from Mark begins the first large section of the gospel (1:14-10:52) describing the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. We move from Mark's short prologue (1:1-1:13) into the body of his Gospel. We've learned in the prologue that John the baptizer was attracting large crowds of people to go out into the wilderness to be baptized. Jesus was baptized by John, received the Spirit, and then spent time alone in the wilderness being tested by satan until "after John was arrested."

My political sense tells me that the mass movement that was drawn to John was a threat to the Roman puppet ruler Herod. Jesus is to inherit that movement, and with that the enmity of those in power in Galilee and Jerusalem who were charged with maintaining "Pax Romana"--the "peace" imposed by Roman military power. The arrest of John foreshadows the arrest of Jesus, and foreshadows as well the countless Christian martyrs later to be arrested, tortured and killed by Roman authority in the coming centuries during which our Bible came into its present form.

Last night a friend of mine, a humble Methodist lay person and retired missionary in his eighties, was given a send-off here in Madison as he faces an appearance in a Federal Court for his part in trying to bring the gospel of the peace of Christ to the notorious School of the Americas--a tool of our government's ambition to impose a "Pax Americana" on the western hemisphere. The School of the Americas concerns many Christians that I know because they teach the tools of torture to the militaries of the present day Herod's we favor in Latin America. Christians are still being arrested. . . .

White House comment on the Egg Roll

See the two earlier posts below for background on this topic

This is a quote from the transcript of a recent press conference with Scott McClellan, White House press secretary:

Q Scott, a two-part. There's been extensive reporting of a homosexual group, Soulforce, calling on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual and trans-gender Americans to be the first in line at this year's White House Easter Egg Roll on April 17th, as a way to show the nation their so-called families. And my question: Will the President take any measures to prevent these activists from using this non-political event as a way to push their agenda on the rest of us?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this event is a time to celebrate Easter and to have a good family celebration here at the White House. And in terms of any other details about it, I think it's still a few months off, so we'll talk about it as we get closer. I've seen a couple of reports about it; I don't know how extensive that reporting has been. But this has been a family event for a long time and the President always looks forward to this event.

Three interesting points: 1) McClellan seems to have heard of this story already (even though it has not been widely reported), 2) he seems to be aware that aside from the Institute of Democracy (IRD) and their neoconservative buddies, the "story" has not yet received "extensive reporting." and 3) note how the questioner frames LGBT families as "so-called families"--not a very unbiased reporter!

In other words, IRD needs to work harder to make a story out of this--getting it mentioned at the White House press conference in the form of a question and answer is a way to "make a mountain out of an egg roll." Let's keep our eye on this--it'll teach us how IRD attempts to manipulate the media.

Making a Mountain out of an Egg Roll

It is fascinating to watch how IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy) and their fellow neo-conservatives are continuing to try to make a news story out of the plans of some lesbian and gay families to join with other families at one of our country's family events--the White House Easter Egg Roll.

They're actually taking up the time of the White House press spokesman, Scott McClellan, to ask, not about the war, not about wire-tapping U.S. citizens, not the response to national disasters, but about plans of some gay and lesbian families with children to join other families with children to roll eggs down the White House lawn.

Yes, Family Pride, Soulforce and other lesbian and gay groups are trying to make a point--our children and grandchildren are real kids who love the Easter Bunny too. If lesbian and gay families with kids are admitted to the event on the same basis as other families with kids, what's the big deal? If the White House says "no, this event is only for families headed by one man and one woman, other families are not welcome" then I think there will be a question to ask Scott McClellan, "Does the White House belong to all Americans or does it belong to the neoconservatives and the theoconservatives?"--I think that is the real issue. I'd like to see President Bush tell the neocons and theocons that they don't own the Presidency or America--this is a much bigger country than that.

I would like to think the White House is bright and mature enough to treat the existence of lesbian and gay families at family events as a non-issue. As I said in the previous post, I don't think George Bush is personally prejudiced against lesbians and gays. It is extremists from the so-called Christian Right who continue to demand that the power of government be employed to punish and exclude whoever does not conform to their narrow views of family life. Bush doesn't need their votes for his next election, and he should ignore them.

IRD Trashes An Easter for all families

United Methodist blogger, Josh Tinley, tells this story pretty well. IRD (the Institute for Religion and Democracy) is a neo-conservative Washington D.C. think tank funded by wealthy secular right-wing foundations and has long sought to destroy the social and political influence of progressive Christians in the mainline churches. One of their favorite tools is the cynical use of homophobia to discredit their targets, but their other targets include Christian peace activists and Christian efforts towards more just economic policies.

IRD is a master of the propaganda tool known as "framing." So it is that Soulforce's attempt to show that lesbian and gay American families and their children can and should share in the family events of our nation is being described by IRD as "crashing" the White House, thus falsely framing Soulforce's plans in violent terms. Lesbian and gay families with their children seek only the same access that other families have to such an event. Frankly, I think it would be smart of George Bush to admit a mixed group of American families. I don't believe George Bush is personally anti-gay. There have been indications that he personally does not share the prejudices being manipulated by the IRD. Unfortunately, his political advisors (notably Karl Rove) like to use the gay "issue" to motivate their right-wing religious base.

My partner, Jim and I, will be Grandpas sometime around Easter this year. It saddens me to think there is any public, civic event in this society where we would not be welcome with our grandchild on the same basis as any other family.

"O Lord, you have searched me and known me."

One of the benefits of following the lectionary in preaching and in personal devotions is that it helps one to struggle with scripture texts that one might otherwise avoid. This Sunday's text from I Corinthians 6: 12-20 brings us into the near context of one of the passages that lesbian and gay Christians often call "the clobber passages" because we find them so often used to condemn and exclude us from the church. I've always found it insulting when people suggest to lesbian and gay Christians that they do not know or have not read these passages. I believe every gay and lesbian Christian knows these passages all too well, and has had to struggle with them one way or another, and has had to seriously and prayerfully search their own consciences about their relationship to God and to their own sexuality. (And reading further along in I Corinthians suggests that heterosexual married folks should be searching their consciences in these matters as well.)

The lectionary also gives us another context--the context of the other readings that are brought together for a given Sunday. Psalm 139 is one of the other readings for this Sunday, and I quote it in the title of this post. The psalmist is aware that he or she can hide nothing from God, that God knows us through and through. There is an ambiguity in the Psalm. On the one hand the psalmist seems to righteously condemn "the wicked" and professes to "hate" those he or she identifies as God's enemies. On the other hand the psalmist then has to ask "is there any wicked way in me?" It is as though the psalmist senses that his/her "righteous hatred" may not be so righteous after all.

We can never be absolutely certain of our righteousness. We must always open our hearts to God's searching and be open to admit our selfish, self-serving and even hateful motives. And, yes, we must be always open to repent and amend our attitudes and behaviors. Lust, selfishness, greed can be present even in those relationships that are outwardly the most socially acceptable--even in "traditional" heterosexual marriages. And, even though Paul may rightly condemn prostitution--scripture gives us examples of righteous prostitutes like Tamar and Rahab. (The same may not be said for their clients, however.)

I Samuel 3:1-20, another of this Sunday's readings also addresses the issue of being open to God's voice. Eli the priest insists that Samuel not hesitate to tell him the truth, even though it seems that he suspects that the truth may not be welcome news. Eli hears the bad news (for his descendants) and accepts it as the word of God. It is always wise to let the light of truth shine into every corner of our lives.